University of Southeastern Philippines

Tagum-Mabini Campus
College of Engineering
BS in Agricultural & Biosystems Engineering

CASE STUDY
ABE 316 – ABE AND RELATED LAWS, SPECIFICATION, CONTRACTS AND
PROFESSIONAL ETHICS

Submitted By:

YSSA P. AZUR
JOEBERT CASTAÑOS
CHARIS GABATAN
SHAIRA MAE MIRAFUENTES
APRIL GRACE TOCMO
BSABE – 3B Student

Submitted To:

ALDRIN I. VILLACUER
Instructor

DECEMBER 2023
 A CASE STUDY OF CBK POWER COMPANY LIMITED VS. COMMISSIONER OF
INTERNAL REVENUE: A CASE STUDY ON VAT INCENTIVES FOR RENEWABLE
ENERGY DEVELOPERS

[ G.R. No. 247918. February 01, 2023 ]

CBK POWER COMPANY LIMITED, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
REVENUE, RESPONDENT.

I. Introduction

This case study examines the dispute between CBK Power Company Limited
(CBK) and the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) concerning CBK's claim for
a refund of unutilized or excess creditable input taxes. The claim arose from CBK's
zero-rated sales of electricity generated through hydropower, which entitled the
company to claim a refund for VAT paid on its purchases.

The central issue of this case revolves around the interpretation of Section 15
of Republic Act No. 9513, which grants VAT incentives to renewable energy
developers. Specifically, the case focuses on whether registration with the
Department of Energy (DOE) is a mandatory requirement for availing of these
incentives.

This case study will delve into the arguments presented by both parties,
analyze the relevant legal provisions and precedents, and ultimately provide an
interpretation of the law that resolves the dispute between CBK and the CIR.

This revision succinctly captures the key points of the case study:
 CBK's Claim: CBK, a renewable energy developer, sought a refund of excess
input taxes they paid.
 CIR's Denial: The Commissioner of Internal Revenue rejected CBK's
claim, citing the company's lack of registration with the Department of Energy.
 Central Issue: The crux of the dispute lies in determining whether DOE
registration is mandatory for renewable energy developers to avail of VAT
incentives under a specific law (Republic Act No. 9513).
 Case Study Focus: This study delves into the legal arguments presented by
both parties and interprets the relevant law to provide clarity on this crucial
issue.
This concise statement effectively highlights the significance of the case study
by emphasizing its impact on renewable energy developers in the Philippines. It
conveys the importance of understanding the legal requirements for claiming VAT
incentives under Republic Act No. 9513 and positions the case study as a valuable
resource for achieving this clarity.

II. Scope of the study

This case study explores the legal dispute between CBK Power Company
Limited (CBK) and the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) concerning CBK's
claim for a refund of excess creditable input taxes. The central issue hinges on
whether registration with the Department of Energy (DOE) is a mandatory
requirement for renewable energy developers, like CBK, to qualify for VAT incentives
granted under Republic Act No. 9513. Through analysis of the case's background,
legal framework, arguments presented by both parties, and a subsequent
interpretation of relevant laws and precedents, this study aims to provide a clear
 understanding of this important issue and its implications for the renewable energy
sector in the Philippines.

This case study aims to:

 Analyze the legal arguments: dissect and evaluate the arguments
presented by both CBK and the CIR in order to understand their legal
reasoning and perspectives.
 Interpret relevant legal provisions: delve into the provisions of Republic Act
No. 9513, DOE Implementing Rules and Regulations, and any applicable
case law to provide a clear interpretation of the law concerning DOE
registration requirement for VAT incentives.
 Provide clarity on the law: offer a comprehensive and unambiguous
understanding of the legal requirements surrounding VAT incentives for
renewable energy developers with regards to DOE registration.
 Assess the case's impact: determine the implications of the Court's decision
for renewable energy developers operating in the Philippines, analyzing how
it affects their eligibility for VAT incentives.
 Recommend improvements: suggest potential solutions for enhancing the
clarity and implementation of the law in the future, addressing any potential
ambiguities or challenges identified through the analysis.

To achieve these objectives, the study will cover the following areas:
 Background and facts: establish the context of the dispute by providing
details about CBK's business activities, their claim for tax refund, and the
CIR's reasoning behind denying it.
 Legal framework: explore the relevant legal framework, encompassing the
provisions of Republic Act No. 9513, DOE Implementing Rules and
Regulations, and any applicable case law or precedents.
 Arguments of both parties: analyze the arguments presented by both CBK
and the CIR, highlighting their legal reasoning and perspectives on the DOE
registration requirement for VAT incentives.
 Analysis and interpretation: carefully analyze the applicable law, apply its
provisions to the specific facts of the case, and offer a clear interpretation of
the legal requirements surrounding DOE registration for VAT incentives.
 Conclusion: summarize the Court's decision, discuss its implications for
renewable energy developers operating in the Philippines, and provide
recommendations for future improvement or clarification of the law.

While this case study provides a comprehensive analysis of the legal issues involved,
it acknowledges certain limitations in its scope:
 The focus is primarily on legal aspects and may not delve into the technical
details of the renewable energy industry or CBK's specific business
operations.
 The scope is confined to the Philippine legal context and may not address
similar issues in other jurisdictions.
 The analysis focuses on the Court's decision in this specific case and may not
address all potential interpretations or future legal challenges regarding the
relevant legislation.

III. Legal Framework:

a. Analysis of relevant provisions of Republic Act No. 9513.
 b. Examination of Department of Energy Implementing Rules and
Regulations.
c. Reference to any applicable case law or precedents.
IV.
V. Arguments of the Parties:
a. Summary of CBK's arguments for entitlement to the refund.
b. Explanation of the CIR's justification for denying the claim.
VI. Analysis and Interpretation:
a. Application of legal framework to the facts of the case.
b. Evaluation of the arguments presented by both parties.
c. Interpretation of the law regarding DOE registration requirement.
VII. Conclusion

VIII. Recommendation

IX. Reference

CEDadiantiTyClea. (2023, May 14). CBK Power gets partial refund claim from tax court.

BusinessWorld Online. https://www.bworldonline.com/the-nation/2023/05/14/522709/cbk-

power-gets-partial-refund-claim-from-tax-court/

Magno, A. (n.d.). G.R. No. 247918.

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2023/feb2023/gr_247918_2023.html?

fbclid=IwAR3GbdWIQvjc9iyuGpjNaBV9YFdfxcCb-2LdcNdQQaxTuqEQVs3S-aeAQso